WUNRN
Donor Aid - Pledges vs. Reality - Tracking Accountability -
Women & Girls
__________________________________________________________
NATURAL DISASTERS ABSOLUTELY REACH
THE PULSE POINTS OF THE LIVES OF WOMEN & GIRLS. AID MAY BE PLEDGED, BUT HOW
OFTEN IS IT ACTUALLY DELIVERED, IN A TIMELY MANNER, & HOW OFTEN IS IT
SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES OF WOMEN & GIRLS?
HOW IS AID MONITORED, TRACKED,
REPORTED ON ACTUAL RECIPIENTS AND OUTCOMES? GENDER DIMENSIONS??
ITALY - ABRUZZO - EARTHQUAKE
2009 - L'AQUILA WOMEN
Italy - Hundreds of
________________________________________
http://www.g8italia2009.it/G8/Home/Media/Foto/G8-G8_Layout_locale-1199882116809_1246707989722.htm
G-8SUMMIT - L'AQUILA, ITALY - Pledges before and at,
regarding aid to the earthquake disaster area in Italy.
______________________________________
THERE ARE STILL MANY NEEDS, NOW 2014, TO HELP L'AQUILA & THE
REGION TO RECOVER FROM THE 2009 EARTHQUAKE.
______________________________________
Direct Link to Full 53-Page Transparency Accountability
Initiative Report:
http://www.transparency-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/donor_aid_final1.pdf
Computer can increase type size for easier reading.
___________________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING THE AID EFFECTIVENESS
AGENDA - PRIMERS - WOMEN - AWID
The
This aid effectiveness agenda, the result of the signature and implementation of the Paris Declaration process currently determines how and to whom aid is being delivered as well as how donor and aid-recipient countries are relating to one another. We hope the information, analysis and proposals included in these primers will encourage women's rights advocates and other actors to understand the relevance of this process and to engage in it to support the call for a more comprehensive, balanced, and inclusive approach to reforming aid so that it reaches the people who need it most, including women!
|
|
Primer
1: An Overview of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the new Aid
Modalities In 2005 civil
society organizations bore witness to the signing of the Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness (PD)—history’s most recent agreement by donor and
recipient countries to reform the delivery and management of aid monies in
order to strengthen its impact and effectiveness. Download PDF |
|
|
|
|
|
Primer
2: Key Official Bodies Related to the Implementation of the The OECD has put in
place a number of official mechanisms to track the implementation of the
Paris Declaration. This 2nd primer in the series Understanding the Aid Effectiveness
Agenda is devoted to outlining and clarifying the roles of these groups in
the lead up to the High Level Forum (HLF3) taking place in Download PDF |
|
|
|
|
|
Primer 3: Civil Society’s Engagement in the Aid Effectiveness Agenda: The Parallel Process, Key Concerns and Recommendations Download
PDF This third primer in the series focuses on describing how the parallel tracking process is being undertaken independently by CSOs and, most recently, CSOs of all shapes and sizes have been calling for reforms to the tracking, delivering, and management of aid for quite some time and have become much more vocal about some of the CS concerns since the signing of the Paris Declaration in 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
Primer
4: Monitoring and Evaluation of the This Primer
presents a general overview of this process, the key results of the first
official round of monitoring, and the main concerns and recommendations put
forward by CSOs participating in the parallel process towards the HLF3 Download PDF |
|
|
|
|
|
Primer
5: Making Women’s Rights and Gender Equality a Priority in the Aid
Effectiveness Agenda This primer
presents highlights from a research piece recently developed by AWID and WIDE
called Implementing the Paris Declaration: Implications for the Promotion of
Women’s Rights and Gender Equality; and the main recommendations from the
International Consultation of Women’s Organizations and Networks and Aid
Effectiveness organized by AWID, WIDE and UNIFEM in Ottawa (January-February
2008). Download PDF |
|
|
|
|
|
Primer
6: Women’s organizations proposals to influence the 3rd High Level Forum
debates in This Primer
explains the advocacy efforts of women’s organizations and CSOs in the lead
up to the HLF-3. Download PDF |
|
|
|
|
|
Primer
7: Gender equality and Aid Effectiveness: regional perspectives in the
preparation process towards This Primer
provides an overview of both the official OECD regional meetings and the
women’s consultations, with specific focus on the key regional messages that
emerged on aid effectiveness, the principles of the Paris Declaration and the
Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). The composition of the meetings and the extent
to which gender equality and women’s empowerment were taken into account is
highlighted, as well. Download PDF |
___________________________________________________________
http://www.irinnews.org/report/95795/how-to-put-accountability-into-practice
AID - HOW TO PUT ACCOUNTABILITY INTO PRACTICE
DUBAI, 4 July 2012 (IRIN) - At the
highest levels, humanitarian aid agencies are increasingly realizing the
importance of being accountable to the people they are trying to help, with
several important developments on the policy front in the last decade. But as field
staff try to put the lofty concepts into practice, they face many challenges,
from the basic (people don’t always understand the word “complaint”) to the
complex (how to be accountable when managing a project remotely due to
insecurity).
“Some [organizations] might have very public commitments to accountability,”
says Maria Kiani, senior accountability adviser with the Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership (HAP), “But those procedures, practices don’t
[always] trickle down to the field operation sites.”
Here is some advice on getting and acting on feedback from affected
communities:
Get buy-in from all stakeholders
Accountability mechanisms can be met with resistance from many sides: your
organization’s management, your field staff, the government, or other
humanitarian partners you hope to engage.
“The number 1 challenge would be… buy-in from your partners,” says Maria Ahmad,
who manages a humanitarian communications programme for the International
Organization of Migration (IOM) in Pakistan.
Take the time before you start a programme to make the various stakeholders
more receptive to the idea. Re-assure your staff that accountability is more
about a “culture of learning”, as TearFund puts it, than a “policing”
mechanism. Creating an equivalent feedback system for staff may help reinforce
this idea.
Understand the local information eco-system
Understanding how people communicate in any given context is crucial. Two-way
communication is a central part of accountability - but aid agencies often
forget to consult affected people before designing those communication
channels. If the people affected have not helped shape your communications
mechanisms, they are unlikely to use it.
For example, a recent assessment by media development organization Internews in
Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya found that most communications at the camp level
happened verbally through pre-established camp administration and other
networks among social groups. But the assessment found that many residents did not trust these
channels, preferring radio, mobile phones and friends or family, and that
verbal information took weeks to reach its targeted audience, “if it reaches
them at all.”
“We end up in many occasions operating based on assumptions rather than
knowledge,” says Jacobo Quintanilla, director of humanitarian information projects,
at Internews. “If you can understand how the information flows, or the
information ecology, you can more successfully set up accountability
mechanisms.”
Speak their language
Beyond the challenges of translating expressions like “accountability framework”
and “feedback mechanism” into local languages, the concepts themselves may be
foreign to local people.
“It is all very well agreeing that we need to be more accountable, but what
constitutes accountability for an elderly woman living in rural South Sudan, or
a young Japanese man who has recently survived a tsunami,” Karyn Beattie, an
independent consultant who has worked with TearFund in the past, writes in
the October 2011 issue of the Humanitarian Exchange magazine,
which focused exclusively on accountability. She describes the word
“accountability” as elusive
and complex.
In areas where people are accustomed to traditional community dispute
resolution systems, for example, they may be skeptical about the idea of
complaining to an NGO.
The Danish Refugee Council (DRC) has struggled with this in West Africa, where
“there is a culture that we should not criticize, because if we criticize,
there will be trouble,” according to its global accountability focal point
Niels Bentzen. There, they have replaced the expression “complaint mechanism”
with “feedback” or “letter box mechanism”.
Have a viable complaints system
A complaints system that is not understood or owned by the people is unlikely
to have impact. Explain what your accountability mechanism is, how you work
with affected people, what their entitlements are, and how they can give
feedback and be part of the process.
Actively seek out complaints on a regular basis instead of waiting for them.
Raise awareness about the complaints mechanism.
“One of the constraints is to make sure that people really understand their
entitlements,” says Olivier Beucher, director of DRC’s programmes in Lebanon
and Syria.
“They often don’t know about their rights because we don’t tell them,” HAP’s
Kiani adds.
Ensure everyone has a voice
In an effort to engage with affected people, aid agencies have often turned to
community representatives or camp leaders as interlocutors. These community
committees are not always representative, but rather “self-selected elder men
who hold these positions of power”, according to Gregory Gleed, a member of
HAP’s roving team. Thus, people may not be comfortable complaining about
community leaders or sensitive issues through this forum, and the
confidentiality of verbal feedback cannot be assured.
“When working well, committees may ensure greater community ownership and empowerment,
access to local knowledge, and enable more efficient programme design and
delivery,” HAP says. “When working poorly they may be linked to corruption,
exploitation and abuse; the needs of diverse groups (including women, men,
children, elderly, disabled, and other groups) not being identified or
blockages in key information.”
According to a study by the International Federation of the Red Cross
(IFRC) of its communication with people affected by the 2010 earthquake in
Haiti, women and people over 50 are the most information-deprived in a disaster
situation. In several circumstances - in Dadaab and Mogadishu - camp leaders
and community representatives were found to be charging money for information
or relief. Holding separate meetings for women and girls, men, youth and ethnic
minority groups can help ensure that all affected people have a voice. This may
require respectful negotiations. Ensuring you have enough female outreach
workers to interact with women in the community is another good way to engage
with the more isolated.
Take sensitivities into account in your programming
For many aid agencies, context-specific sensitivities have posed a challenge to
implementing accountability mechanisms.
“Cultural sensitivities can play havoc with your message,” says Ahmad, of IOM
in Pakistan. Advertising a hotline for victims of rape and sexual exploitation,
for example, would “create an uproar” once translated into Urdu, she says,
because communities would be offended by public reference to the word “sex”.
Before putting out any message to affected people, Ahmad recommends asking your
national staff: `Would your mother listen to this? Would it be ok if you were
saying this to your sister? If your government heard this, would they find it
offensive?’
Similarly, when designing feedback mechanisms, be aware of the sensitivities.
An NGO in Pakistan had good success with complaint boxes in the south, but
received no feedback when it used the same mechanism in the north - people
affected by civil war in the north were afraid the information would be
misused, Kiani said.
Build accountability into budgets and staff responsibilities
Some accountability mechanisms can be expensive. Think of the human resources
needed to communicate information in camps and to translate documents; the cost
of toll-free numbers or text messages; and the staff required to man a
call-centre. In Pakistan, a project to give cash assistance to 1.1 million
people affected by floods cost $2.2 million in communications - spreading
information, receiving feedback and making referrals - alone. Factor the costs
in advance and include them in your grant proposal.
The IFRC’s beneficiary communications programme during the provision of shelter
at a camp for people displaced by the Haitian earthquake had a separate budget
and terms of reference. Staff are more likely to follow through with something
that they are required to report on. Include “responding to beneficiary
feedback” in employees’ responsibilities and performance evaluations.
Another gap has been adequate staff with the right skills. “Effective
communication with communities is a specific and important technical area of
work, separate from PR or external relations,” says Imogen Wall, a
communications specialist who worked with the UN during the Haiti earthquake.
Re-assure your staff
A common challenge in implementing accountability mechanisms is reaction from
staff, who often see feedback and complaints mechanisms as a way of policing
them.
“The word `complaints’ can be threatening to people,” says Madara
Hettiarachchi, associate director for humanitarian accountability at World Vision
International.
“The first time, when you speak to staff about this, they immediately say, `you
are giving our beneficiaries a possibility to undermine us, to try to gang up
against us, and you are giving us no defences’,” DRC’s Bentzen says.
But researchers have found that negative perceptions by staff of accountability
usually stem from a lack of understanding of the concept.
Technology is not the silver bullet
While technology, like Frontline SMS, has helped fill gaps in accountability
and communication with affected people, it still requires human resources to be
effective. For example, Ushahidi (the crowd-sourcing mapping software) helped
identify areas of concern in Haiti, but detailed needs assessments and field
visits were needed afterwards to complete the picture.
“Twitter, Facebook and blogs can all be used for communication, though
harnessing these real-time but indirect channels, and utilizing them in an
effective way, remains a challenge,” Gwyn Lewis and Brian Lander, co-chairs of
the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Sub Group on Accountability to
Affected Populations, wrote in Humanitarian Exchange. “Information communicated
through these means can be difficult to verify and may not be consistent or
accurately reflective of needs.”
After the eruption of Mount Merapi in Indonesia, local community group Jalin
Merapi used twitter, SMS and Facebook to inform people of what was happening
and get feedback on their needs. To close the loop, they communicated these to
the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for further
action.
Coordinate your accountability mechanisms
After the 2004 tsunami in Asia, many NGOs began conducting meetings with
affected communities. “All of us want[ed] to be accountable,” says Quintanilla,
of Internews. This led to “meeting after meeting” in the same community.
Given beneficiaries have a hard time differentiating between aid agencies, in
many contexts, joint or at least coordinated accountability mechanisms would go
a long way.
But there are clear risks, as Lewis and Lander, of the IASC sub-group say:
“If, in the case of a joint feedback/complaints system, one organization does
not respond in a timely and systematic manner, what was initially feedback can
become a complaint. If there is no follow-up on a complaint and corrective
action is not taken, this can become an even more serious issue, potentially
posing a threat to all organizations working in a community, because everyone
is seen as equally culpable and confidence in the whole system is weakened.”
Manage expectations
“Expectations are raised when communities are asked for feedback,” David
Bainbridge, Tearfund’s international director, wrote in Humanitarian Exchange.
Gleed, of HAP, warns against making too many promises in the assessment phase,
not only to affected communities, but to government and other stakeholders:
“Agencies that go in with clear-cut messages - we can and can’t do this - from
the outset, are less likely to disappoint the communities they are working in.”
When you cannot meet someone’s needs, refer them to another agency that can.
Explain that your organization is dependent on funding and that you may not be
able to do more than one project in the same community.
Researchers have found that affected people recognize, respect and appreciate
the limitations of agencies that communicate well and involve beneficiaries in
their programming.
Some advice from Bryony Norman, a programme officer with Tearfund who has just
completed a study on accountability in insecure environments: “We
encourage staff to begin all discussions with the statement: `This part of the
discussion I’m having with you is for Tearfund learning… to enable us to
improve what we do… We want to listen to your feedback… and we want to be
continually learning, but it does not mean that Tearfund will be able to do
everything you have asked’.”
During the 2004 tsunami in Asia, Médecins sans Frontičres (MSF) stopped
accepting funds at one point because it believed it no longer had the capacity
to spend more money.
Look for ways to be adaptable
Many aid workers have pointed to the tension between accountability to donors
and accountability to affected people, with donors’ reporting requirements
often making it difficult for aid agencies to adapt their programmes according
to feedback from affected people.
“The biggest challenge appears to be achieving the rigour required for donor
accountability, while being flexible enough to include the voices of affected
people,” write Paul Knox-Clarke and John Mitchell of the Active Learning
Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP).
Some have suggested setting aside a certain amount of money in every project to
allow aid agencies to change course, if necessary. But while donors are
increasingly recognizing the need to be flexible, they have not reached the
point of including such a budget line.
Try seeking out sources of funding that allow for more flexibility. Privately
funded organizations like MSF and community-based organizations do not need
permission from donors to change course and thus can respond faster than those
who have to wait for institutional funding.